Here is a diatribe from an evolutionist that is breathtaking in it bold assertion of utter untruth as ultimate truth and of abject folly as admirable wisdom. It comes from a self-appointed expert, blogging away to make himself important. He tells us:

There is no complete theory of abiogenesis [spontaneous generation]. The general hypothesis is that chemicals can form primitive replicators. Abiogenesis is not a component of the Theory of Evolution, or Germ Theory for that matter. The first life form on Earth may have been a lucky accident, a natural property of carbon and liquid water, a unique circumstance, seeded by comets, or even a Divine Miracle. The Theory of Evolution concerns the diversification of life, not its origin. However, it is known that life did not always exist on Earth, but that once it began, it diversified into a variety of forms. So, you can hide God in a Gap of human knowledge. Concerning abiogenesis, the Gap should hold for a few more years, at least. But why you would want to hide God in ever-shrinking scientific ignorance is beyond me. Seems like a rather small god.

So much for the mockery of an evolutionary genius! This is about as good a case as an evolutionist can muster against the reality of God our Creator. But it is utter nonsense. Consider it carefully.

First, he argues that the theory of spontaneous generation is not a necessary part of the theory of evolution. In other words, he simply ignores the fundamental question: "You say that the universe as it is today is the result of billions of years of evolutionary development, but where did anything come from in the first place? How did it all get started?" Evolutionists have no answer to that question at all. The best attempt at an answer is spontaneous generation-that is, that without any outside help nothing for no reason suddenly became something from which everything else developed into the universe as it is today. The choice is clear: either the universe was created or it spawned itself out of nothing! So despite their protests deniers of a Creator are stuck with abiogenesis.

Second, we are told that life on earth could have been a lucky accident-for though the writer sarcastically says it might have been caused by a divine miracle he goes on to mock the very idea of God. This still ignores the question of where all the ingredients of this lucky accident came from in the first place. Evolution, we are told, deals with the diversification of life not its origin. He has to say that because he cannot even dream of a viable theory of origins!

Third, it is blatantly untrue that evolution explains the diversification of life and relegates the need for God to the gaps of human knowledge. It's the evolutionist who squirms through the gaps. Think of DNA. This is the master plan containing all the instructions for its own peculiar development that lies in every organism. Without it the organism could not exist never mind develop. Now here's the question: How could an organism evolve and store the instructions necessary for its own existence and replication? That's like asking how an organism that does not exist could decide to exist and to manufacture and store the information needed to secure its ability to replicate itself. Yet this is the folly that evolution passes off as truth.

In arguing this way we are not seeking to hide God in a few gaps of human knowledge. We are pointing out that existence has no possibility apart from God and His creative power. By its very nature DNA-indeed every part of God's creation-carries the signature of its Creator. And when we look at His gloriously designed works, we see no "small god," as the evolutionist charges, but the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation" and with Stuart Hines exclaim, "My God, how great Thou art!"

Last Christmas an English newspaper heralded the release of a new film as "this year's Christmas blockbuster." Other newspapers were even more effusive. "Spectacular!" cried one. "Classic," boasted another. "Outshines even the likes of Potter and Narnia." The film boasted some of the film industry's leading stars. It was based on a trilogy of children's stories by a British writer whose works have garnered praise and literature prizes and have sold millions of copies. The writer is Philip Pullman, a British atheist who has made no secret of the aim of his works. Though the film version toned down the overtly anti-God message of the books, it did not eradicate it entirely, especially since it may be taken for granted that the screen version must generate added interest in the original works.

Those works are presented as a trilogy titled His Dark Materials. Each of the three volumes follows a carefully worked out course with a very clear agenda. The New York Times called His Dark Materials "a thrillingly ambitious tale. ... [It may] well hold the most subversive message in children's literature for years." Pullman's agenda is no secret. He has gone on record repeatedly to say that he wants to kill God and introduce children to atheism. He told the Washington Post, "I am trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief." Again he stated, "My books are about killing God." Pullman hates God, the Bible, Christianity and anything that he considers may support them. He also hates anything that cherishes the innocence of children untouched as yet by such things as sex and adult themes. For that reason he detests such children's classics as Winnie the Pooh and The Chronicles of Narnia. He reserves his most violent hated for Narnia because those tales exalt children's innocence and most of all because he sees them as Christian propaganda. In Pullman's world-the world he and his publishers want to drag our children into-good is evil and evil is good. What the Bible describes as sinful or evil he teaches is good and liberating.

Pullman mocks those, especially in America's Bible belt, who have raised an alarm against the Harry Potter stories and yet who allow his work to go unchallenged: "I've been surprised at how little criticism I've got. Harry Potter's been taking all the flak. ... Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God."

Despite this open hatred for God and especially for Christianity, Pullman has continued to receive rave reviews. In Britain, the first part of his trilogy was awarded the prize as the best children's book of the last 70 years. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury got in on the act and opined that His Dark Materials should be included in the Sunday School curriculum!

Let us be aware of what is going on. Not satisfied with merely writing and having his work turned into a film, Pullman has produced a DVD for 11-year-old children, Why Atheism? This atheist is targeting our children with the propaganda of Hell and is receiving all the help that the gurus of the arts world can give him. He boasts he is flying under the radar. That must stop. Expose him and make sure his materials are not slipped into the curriculum of either school or Sunday School.

Some time ago I reported on the action of the U.S. Navy against one of its chaplains. It fined him $3000 for disobeying the order of a superior officer to desist from praying in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Congress quickly moved and the Navy changed its policy to allow chaplains to pray according to their convictions. Now it's the turn of the Army. Actually, that's a little misleading because the events we will discuss occurred in August of 2007. They have just recently been made public, hence our interest.

A Fundamental Baptist Chaplain, Captain Stuart Kazarovich ran services for the soldiers at Forward Operating Base Loyalty at which he preached and prayed and answered soldiers' questions in a manner consonant with his Fundamental Baptist beliefs. However, his brigade chaplain didn't like what Kazarovich was telling the men and, when the Baptist chaplain took a break for R & R, he moved to have the services shut down, despite Kazarovich's known intention to arrange for their continuation. Even when he returned from his period of rest Kazarovich was not permitted to resume his services. He was endorsed by the Associated Gospel Churches who have reported that the suppression lasted five weeks. According to Rev. G. William Baugham, the chairman of the AGC's commission on chaplains, it seems it was a representative from another professedly Christian denomination who closed down the service. Chaplain Baugham said that the service appears to have been suppressed "because it was offensive to the brigade chaplain." That brigade chaplain allegedly stated that in the Army there was no room for being born again.

Chaplain Baugham stated, "AGC believes the Army's initial response was slow and ineffective, despite the unprecedented depredation of basic constitutional rights of the fundamental Baptist congregation. In short, this calls attention to the suppression of a Fundamental Baptist service and the command's insensitivity to religious hostility." Thankfully, the soldiers served by Captain Kazarovich would not accept the suppression of their services. They signed a petition, in which they were joined by family members and by some pastors back in the States. The services were restored but the Army has remained silent on the religious freedom issues it raises.

Remember that some time there were reports of issues within the corps of chaplains for the US. Militarybecause some of its members were approved for their posts by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who at the time headed the American Muslim Council, and now is serving a 23-year prison sentence on federal terrorism charges. This is bizarre: a Muslim who was so inefficiently vetted by the military that they failed to discover his terrorist connections was given the power to approve military chaplains while Christian chaplains are being harassed if they even mention the name of Jesus. And their services have, at least in the case of Captain Kazarovich, been shut down because some superior officer despised his message-despite the fact that the men who were going out to face death welcomed that message.

AGC has called for a full investigation. I hope they get it and that they are able to root out of the military those who have taken on the task of prohibiting our servicemen and women from hearing the gospel of Christ.

Prestonwood Baptist Church, near Dallas, Texas, has about 26,000 members. It has about 40 pastors to take care of various aspects of the needs of the vast congregation. One of those pastors was Rev. Joe Barron and on May 15, 2008, he was arrested in a police sting. Evidently Barron had been carrying on an internet liaison over a period of two weeks with someone he believed was a 13 year-old girl. What he didn't know was that his little girl was really an officer of the Bryan, Texas, police department. So all the vile, sexually explicit filth that he wrote was "taken down in evidence against him." Of course, at that stage the police had no idea of the pervert's identity. They discovered that when Barron set up a meeting with his 13 year-old victim. He drove his wife's car 200 miles for the meeting and was fully equipped for an illicit encounter with a minor. Instead, he walked right into the arms of the police.

Prestonwood Baptist Church publicly announced his resignation and their acceptance of it. The church is cooperating with the police to discover if Barron had contact with any other minor girls. An examination of his computers will, no doubt, tell investigators a lot. Meanwhile, once again, we have the unwholesome spectacle of a church leader embroiled in seamy perversion. Apparently, Barron was full of shame and remorse when he was arrested. Well he might be but I have a great deal of skepticism about the sincerity of a pervert who shows remorse when caught but could without remorse plan the rape of a 13 year-old girl. Such a man has no place in the Christian ministry. If he belongs anywhere in this world it is in jail and I hope that he draws a sentence that may act as a deterrent to the hordes of predatory perverts who are roaming cyberspace in search of young victims.

But we need to be careful here. We need to remember that even this monster has a family. He drove his wife's car. So he has a wife who will no doubt be devastated and deeply humiliated by her husband's vileness. She needs our prayers that the Lord will give her grace to bear the shame brought on her by her perverted partner. Then there is the church. When Prestonwood took Barron on staff, he had served as a senior pastor and as an education minister in other churches over a period of years. There is no evidence that the church ignored any warning signals. Many will use Barron's wickedness as a way of getting at the church. That would be unfair. They are victims not the perpetrators of this crime.

All this raises the issue of internet pornography. It seems to be everywhere. Boys are being introduced to it at an early age and being drawn into its foul sphere. Grown men live in a fantasy world of lust and illicit relationships. And the molestation of children grows at an alarming rate.

Police sting operations help the situation. Getting rid of judges who routinely give derisory sentences to child molesters would help more. Parents taking responsibility to supervise their kids' use of computers would help even more. And, of course, tough action against the porn industry is long overdue. We have for too long allowed peddlers of moral filth to wrap themselves in the cloak of free speech. It's time we had men in politics and on the Supreme Court who had the guts to say that pornography is not protected speech. Would all these make America pure? No. They would help but the nation's greatest need is a resurgence of gospel preaching that will bring millions of our people to the knowledge of saving grace. That's the best way to rid us of perverts in the pulpit or anywhere else.

In the middle of May, 2008, Washington hosted a strange gathering of theologians, philosophers and religious skeptics-from militant atheists to agnostics and New Age "spiritual" atheists, if you can imagine such a thing. They gathered to read papers on what some scientists like to call "The God Hypothesis."

The general infidel line is:

1. Science has failed to find natural evidence of God. Natural evidence is all there is. No God. Case closed.

2. Slightly softer is this line of reasoning: Science erases the "need" for God as an explanation of our experiences, and God either doesn't exist or is at best a hypothesis (to the agnostic).

3. And then there's the view expressed in the title of University of Hawaii physicist and astronomer Victor Stenger's new book "God: The Failed Hypothesis - How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist."

So the "scientific" consensus would seem to be that scientists hate God or at least find God very disturbing. Modern science has found no evidence of God, and so it's stupid to think God exists. I say that this "would seem to be" the scientific consensus. In fact, a full 40% of "scientists" (and there's no clear definition as to who may qualify to be counted in the number) have stated their belief in God.

The Bible says that those who deny God are fools. I know that it does not make me look good to pronounce a learned scientist a fool but if God says it, then it is so. But, you ask, how can a man who knows so much about physics or astronomy or some other branch of science be a fool? The answer is not hard to find. Listen again to the starting point of the skeptical scientists: "Science has failed to find natural evidence of God." Without "evidence," there can be no God. That's the argument. But look at the assertion that science has found no evidence of God. That is simply untrue. That some scientists have sought to explain away the evidence is clear but that the evidence does not exist is just a statement of an atheist's faith. The skeptical scientist starts off with the assumption that everything in the universe can be explained naturalistically-that is, without reference to God. As one such scientist put it, he believes that there is no such thing as miracle and that the things that now appear to be miraculous will one day be explicable in purely naturalistic terms. Can he "prove" this? Not at all. It is a statement of blind faith.

I say "blind faith" because (1) it denies the most basic intuition of human nature-the innate knowledge that God is; (2) it ignores the clear evidence of design throughout creation; (3) it also ignores the impossibility of anything but theism to account for the existence of the material universe; and (4) most of all it ignores the supreme evidence of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially His resurrection from the dead. Christ is the rock on which all atheism must finally perish. It's not science that demands that men reject the reality of God's existence; it is the perversion of science. The trouble with atheists is that, as the Bible says, they do not "like to retain God" in their minds. Their denial is a cover for their depravity. That's why the Bible calls atheists "fools." And no amount of degrees or academic jargon can change that. You know the old saying, "A rose by any other name..." Well, a fool by any other name is still a fool and the supreme fool is the man who denies the very existence of his Creator.

I want to return briefly to the virulent atheism being spouted by Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University zoologist. Yesterday I quoted Dawkins at some length, especially his claim that the Creation story is just a bronze-age myth that got written down in the book of Genesis. Remember what he said: "It is only one of literally thousands of such myths from around the world, but it happened, by a series of historical accidents, to become enshrined in a book-Genesis. ... Now, in the 21st century as we approach Darwin's bicentenary, the fact that half of Americans take Genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal."

Dawkins and his fellows usually ignore some very important truths as they dismiss the Bible's creation story as a myth. Dawkins ignores the glaring fact that he and his evolutionary bedfellows have never been able to explain why, if there is no Creator, there is a universe at all. All notions of eternally existent matter or of spontaneous creation are philosophically, logically and scientifically impossible. But to a committed God-hater, that is a small matter. Dawkins and his kind also ignore the mountain of evidence that when we examine many substances at the irreducibly minimum level of complexity that it needs for its very existence, there are still powerful evidences of design. The old Darwinian answer that given enough time "chance" is sufficient to explain all things is absolute nonsense. The truth is that mere chance has no power whatsoever to cause anything. You flip a coin and say that "chance" causes it to fall heads or tails. But that is not so. What causes it to fall one way or the other is the exertion of certain energies: the strength of the flip, the currents of the air, the state of the surface on to which the coin falls. The fact that some of these are outside of the control of the one doing the coin toss doesn't mean that "chance" actually caused anything. Never forget this: chance has no power to cause anything at all. So to put the existence of everything down to chance is an absurdity-which is much worse than a bronze-age myth!

When Dawkins dismisses the Creation story as a bronze-age myth he leaves out the most important fact of all: the Lord Jesus Christ endorsed it as fact. Now Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God. To prove His claim He did many miracles and finally said He would lay down His life and rise again from the dead. No one could claim that He set a standard of proof that anyone less that who He claimed to be could fulfill. And He did fulfill it. The evidence for the Resurrection of Christ is overwhelming. So consider this: the One who claimed to be the Son of God, who showed His power over all areas of the natural world and who died and rose again in validation of His claim has assured us that the Bible's record of creation is true. Richard Dawkins says it isn't. Whom are we to believe? I think the answer is obvious. Dawkins presents himself as rigorously scientific, yet he ignores the most vital parts of the evidence. In truth, he is the apostle of a religious movement. He demands that we accept his man-centered idolatry and mocks the Creator and His work.

In his bid to lay hold of our souls, Dawkins runs head-on into the Lord Jesus Christ. So again, whom will we believe? There is no contest. Perhaps if Dawkins dies and rises again from the dead we may give him a more serious hearing. Until then we'll keep believing the One who did just that.

Listen to this. It is a diatribe of hate but no government agency will call it a hate crime. It is a blast of consummate ignorance but it passes for academic brilliance. It is a lie but the liar is posing as an apologist for truth.

Richard Dawkins, one of atheism's most vocal spokesmen said the following: "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." He has a lot more in the same vein:

"They [Christians] believe this because they rate a particular bronze-age origin myth more highly than all the scientific evidence in the world. It is only one of literally thousands of such myths from around the world, but it happened, by a series of historical accidents, to become enshrined in a book-Genesis. ... Now, in the 21st century as we approach Darwin's bicentenary, the fact that half of Americans take Genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal." This "educational scandal" has Dawkins all stirred up and ready for battle: "The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. But it must be a positive attack, for science and reason have so much to give."

Richard Dawkins is an Oxford University science professor. He is an evolutionist and a militant atheist, with his atheism providing the philosophical basis for his acceptance of evolution and his evolutionism providing the alleged "scientific" evidence for his atheism. In other words, Dawkins is guilty of two egregious and deliberate errors: First, he pretends that he speaks from a position of pure science and evidence. He does not. He speaks from the presupposition of atheism and he interprets the facts to support his notion. Second, he would have us believe that his world view does not shape his scientific interpretation. But it does.

The Institute for Creation Research rightly pointed out, "What Dawkins proposes is not a faithless system. Instead of God, however, he enshrines science and reason. If something cannot currently be explained through natural means, it is only a matter of time before ‘miracles' will be satisfactorily transformed by science into ‘natural phenomena.'" Dawkins wrote:

"An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles--except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful."

This is the Dawkins religion. Given the endless evidence of design in all the universe I think it is Dawkins and his ilk who are "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, "the real practitioners of an "educational scandal."

In a series of votes the British parliament stamped the United Kingdom as one of the most godless, depraved and barbaric nations on earth. What? Britain barbaric? Surely not! Suave Britons leave that sort of thing to the religious nuts of places such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. But Britain also has its religious nuts only in her case her nuts embrace the religion of secular humanism-indeed, it sometimes appears they will embrace anything just as long as (a) it is not Bible Christianity and (b) it gives full scope to their unbridled lusts. Consider the following four votes taken in May, 2008:

1. By an overwhelming majority, Parliament voted against lowering the gestational age at which an unborn child could be killed by abortion. Currently, Britain allows children to be aborted up to 24 weeks, a standard that has been in place since 1990. To most MPs it mattered not that in many cases children of less than 24 weeks gestational age could live outside the womb. They ploughed on anyway, determined that they would do nothing to slow the abortion- the slaughter-of some 200,000 children per year. They would not even agree to drop the legal limit of abortions to 22 weeks. It had to say at 24 weeks. Even that is far from absolute for Britain allows children to be killed by abortion right up to the time of birth in cases where the children are considered "heavily handicapped."

2. In a move to accommodate lesbians, Parliament passed a measure that removed from the in vitro fertilization law the requirement that clinics consider the need of a father in the life of the child so conceived. In other words, the in vitro fertilization law was passed to help married couples who could not conceive a child normally to do so with the help of medical science. Now, parliament has substituted the requirement of "supportive parenting" in the place of fathers-just to allow lesbian perverts to bear children without the inconvenience of a heterosexual marriage. Gordon Brown's government argued that current law "discriminates against lesbian couples." This is the sort of inanity that passes for argument in what was once proudly known as the Mother of Parliaments. Now depraved lawmakers want to play God and decree that childbearing should not be limited to marriage or even to male-female relationships!

3. Parliament voted to legalize the creation in medical clinics of part-human part-animal hybrid embryos. An amendment to ban hybrids was defeated by a 336-176 margin. This was allegedly to promote stem cell research that "may"-no guarantees-some day help with a variety of genetic diseases. The fact that stem cell may be taken from non-embryonic sources didn't register with the majority of MPs.

4. Parliament also approved the creation of so-called "saviour siblings"-embryos created specifically in laboratories so that the resulting in vitro fertilization baby can be a donor of bone morrow and other tissue for older brothers and sisters with genetic-based diseases.

All of this is utter barbarism. This is what happens when a nation cuts loose from the moorings of a code of law and ethics that is based on God's word. Britain is not alone in its depraved indifference to moral integrity. Europe and the United States are travelling the same path and it is a path to national destruction. "Blessed is the nation whose God is he Lord." True, but never forget, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and the nations that forget God." Sadly, that's just what Britain has done.

America has no monopoly on religious charlatans and nut cases. Pyotr Kuznetsov is the leader of a Russian doomsday sect called the True Orthodox Church. Kuznetsov and his followers reject such things as processed food and regard bar codes as Satanic symbols. We used to hear more of this kind of nonsense over here but it seems to have died down everywhere except among a few deranged individuals. Pyotr Kuznetsov went much farther than holding a few nutty notions. He set up as a prophet of the Lord and prophesied that the world would end in May, 2008. He and his followers made their preparations for the end. During November, 2007, thirty-five of his followers barricaded themselves in a cave near a village some 435 miles southeast of Moscow. They threatened to blow up gas cylinders if officials tried to force them to leave. When spring floods caused part of the cave to collapse, twenty-four of the cult members left but only a few adults remained to await the end.

As you will have guessed by now, the world did not end in May 2008. That brought deep and terrible depression to Pyotr Kuznetsov and according to news reports he was so downcast by the failure of his prophecies that he tried to commit suicide by hitting himself on the head with a log.

Cases such as this are so bizarre that we may be tempted to smile. But they are not funny. Kuznetsov has done himself great harm and he has ruined the lives of his followers. Worse, still he has brought the cause of Christ into disrepute and has held the serious truths of Bible prophecy up to public ridicule. This is always the result when men take it on them to do what the Bible says cannot be done and set the date of the ends of the world. A few years ago, Harold Camping stood in an influential position as the head of Family Radio and brought great shame to the cause of Christ when he set the date of the Lord's return-and obviously was altogether wrong. Amazingly, many people seem to like being deceived. Camping went quiet for a while and then launched another zany theory to try to get people out of all churches and into fellowships ruled not according to what the apostles set down for New Testament churches but according to his own ideas-and he based all this on a system of interpretation so bizarre that one wonders how on earth he ever came up with it and, even more, how anybody could ever fall for it.

Everyone who has ever set a date for Christ's return has been proved wrong. Every so-called "prophet" who has brought an alleged message from God specifying a date has been proved wrong. The Seventh Day Adventists came into being on the back of a failed attempt to date Christ's return. So did the Jehovah's Witness cult (who are emphatically not witnesses of Jehovah).

Pyotr Kuznetsov ended up banging his head with a log. We can do better than that and fill our heads and hearts with the "more sure word of prophecy." Christ is coming; the age will come to an end. This much we know. And we know what we are supposed to do with this knowledge, namely, to purify ourselves, to watch, wait patiently and evangelize the world with the gospel of sovereign, saving grace. Let's leave the lunatic fringe to itself and get on with the job our Saviour left us to do.

In May, 2008, California's Supreme Court ruled a state law that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman "unconstitutional." So a law that was forced on an unwilling legislature by a state-wide vote of the California electorate has been thrown out by a court that is so far out in left field that it appears detached from all reality, to say nothing of morality. In the year 2000 California voters approved a ban on same-sex "marriages," but so-called "gay rights" activists were joined by the city of San Francisco in challenging the ban. Now the state Supreme Court has decided in favor of the challengers. The seven-judge panel voted 4-3 in favor of the plaintiffs who argued that the 2000 law was discriminatory. This majority decision states in effect that in California homosexuals have the same right to form same-sex "marriages" as heterosexual couples have to form traditional marriages. In its ruling the court said, "The ‘right to form a family relationship' applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality." Speaking for the four judges whose decision carried the day, Chief Justice Ron George wrote that "limiting the designation of marriage to a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute."

So once again the homosexual lobby has been able to use unelected judges to exceed their constitutional power to overthrow the will of the people. The state legislature twice passed laws to legalize homosexual marriage, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed them, deferring the matter to the court system. The people spoke and the court has done what the legislature could not do-it has made same-sex "marriages" a civil right. The four judges who voted for same-sex marriage are judicial activists. They have taken it on themselves to make law rather than to apply the constitution which nowhere makes sexual deviancy a civil right.

Of course, the fundamental error was in ever bowing to the pressure to decriminalize homosexual activity. Once they won acceptance of their perversion as lawful behavior it was certain that homosexual activists would use the leverage they had gained to force on society wide-ranging changes that will corrupt and destroy the nation and its most cherished institutions, notably the traditional family. Homosexuality is an open defiance of the law of God our Creator. Homosexual "marriage" is a corruption of the first societal bond He established when He created the first man and the first woman and made them husband and wife. When the nation departs from God and His law it is at the mercy such legal lunacy as California's Supreme Court has just enacted.

Thankfully in this case this perverse Supreme Court decision is not the last word on the matter. There is a movement to pass an amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, so taking the matter entirely out of the hands of left wing judicial activists. I hope that the move is successful and that it will be followed all across the nation. We have already allowed the homosexual lobby to exercise power out of all proportion to their rights and it is time to call a halt. Constitutional amendments may be the only way to do it.